(PS) Carmichael v. Owens

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 GINA DIANE CARMICHAEL, No. 2:21–cv–740–JAM–KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 3.) 14 AMY OWENS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On April 29, 2021 the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3), 18 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 19 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On May 11, 2021, plaintiff filed 20 objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 4), which have been considered by the 21 court. 22 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an 23 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 24 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 25 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection 26 has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the matter on the applicable law. 27 See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s 28 conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 1 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 2 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 3 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 6 2. The action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and 7 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

9 DATED: June 28, 2021 /s/ John A. Mendez 10 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28